OSNews

What I don't like about the "Patriot Act" is that it too broad and has very few checks and balances in it to keep it from being abused.

Here are the facts of the Patriot Act: For the issue of delayed-notice warrants from 2006-2009, the patriot Act was used 1618 times for drug cases, 122 times for fraud cases, and 15 times for cases of terrorism. All the 9/11 attack did was take away our rights.

Well any suspension of habeus corpus is clearly against the constitution. Letting any law that is so clearly unconstitutional stand SHOULD be a big issue for everyone. Otherwise you can just throw the whole idea of rule of law right out and just admit it is rule of the ultra-rich. Maybe that doesn't effect you though. I can't say.

My understanding is that that is an alternate root-zone to the standard ICANN. There's been a few of those that have cropped up over the years.

I think 'decentralized' as it is put in this article is referring to a 'dynamic' domain, or one that doesn't depend on a specific tld or url to operate. I imagine something like wikileaks and its mirrors would be the closest example.

Possibly, but its made by the same people as bitcoin. A huge red flag for me. Bitcoin is a noble idea that's economically naive about the effects of deflation. So what is this alternative DNS solution naive about?

Even if root servers was internationally controlled, USA still could seize domains controlled by a company on American soil.

As long the US government keep itself away from the domains of other countries, i don't think that any government would care less. (They know that the first time they dare to touch a thirty party domain, it will be the last.)

If you buy a service from a company in USA, then you subject part of your business to the American law. Just because its so easy to get American services overseas, it does not mean that the service itself is a international resource except from American law.

By the end of day, authoritarian countries already filter their DNS servers, and their local domain controllers are subject to heavy censorship, including background checks of anyone buying a domain. What we should try is to prevent USA itself to become a authoritarian regime.

Thus, the only way to be sure that your business do not fall in some stupid grey area of American law, is to rely on the local services of your country, or of a country that is legal to do whatever you want to. If you are using the internet for political purposes, then you should go after a country that is sympathetic with your pleas.

Its pretty sad to know that we don't have a country with the mighty of USA to actually stand as the perfect freedom outpost of the world. But as imperfect as the US government is, there is far worse countries out there.

Of course, if you rely on USA services just because your local services sucks, i'm sorry for you.

Because .com does not represent the USA, it's short for commercial, what does a company based in the UK or Asia or wherever have to do with the US? Nothing, perhaps the US should just use it's own .us extension by default and create a new, better mechanism for handling .com in collaboration with the rest of the world. Maybe it's also time to use different extensions depending on the organisation/person registering a domain. CERN is also where www was developed, should it have exclusive rights over that?

Most people are not complaining about that .com .org and so on are under the US jurisdiction.

The problem is how they handle it:

http://www.osnews.com/story/25627/_US_government_is_scaring_web_bus...

And the problem seems to be getting worse.

that's wrong usa didn't fund everything that became internet

Bah, stealing and/or taking credit for Europe's greatest stuff is practically a sport over here. Einstein? Yoink, worked at Princeton. Werner Von Braun? Yoink, helped start our space program. Timothy Berners Lee? Yoink, now an Ars Technica guy and member of the Cato Institute. Internetworking in general? Yoink.

The question is not if it's bad or good but if it would be worse or better.